I was hoping to walk out of today's board meeting with some clarity regarding next week's membership meeting. I didn't, as the questions that were asked seemed to sprout answers that were much like the By-laws...ambiguous to a fault. Seems some board members were saying one thing while others were saying something entirely different. The biggest single issue was the proxies and when those turning them in would know the totals. I think it is safe to say, as a collective body, we won't know. Hopefully, by the end of the week, each person that turned them in will know how many have been certified by the RCSC. Knowing the totals would tell us how hard we need to work to put actual butts in chairs. One board member seemed to be saying we would have the information; another implied we may not know till Monday, the day of the meeting. It shouldn't be that big a challenge, unless of course they don't want a quorum where the members voice can be heard. Even that was in question. Should we reach a quorum, it appears as if they won't let us vote on anything. Nope, it all has to be shoveled back to the board for consideration. One could argue both sides, though it is clear to me the Articles of Incorporation should trump whatever the by-laws say. In fact, the articles are clear, the by-laws cannot be in conflict with the Articles. They are, and whoever rewrote the by-laws the past 15 years appears to have done so on purpose. Then of course was the fact the motion to increase the PIF last meeting was made illegally. They have an obligation to post motions for members considerations on the agenda. In the case of the increase to $4000, there was nowhere on the agenda that was mentioned. When i questioned it, the parliamentarian claimed i was in error for having not called a point of order when they did it. Really? Lots of great comments from people in the room today. It is clear there is an amount of frustration that won't be going away any time soon. The only real question is this: Will the membership meeting make it better or worse? I suspect i know, but we will see.
As far as proxies and proxy counts go, the members will never know the real true number of qualified proxy votes. It is all done by and for the board. Everyone's remarks on this forum on how the proxies are accumulated and counted is pure conjecture on their part. Lets see what happens at the member meeting. As for the parliamentarian, I mentioned in another thread that I do not believe the current parliamentarian is real. According to the Parliamentarian web site there are only 3 from Arizona and she is not one of them even though somewhere it was mentioned she was a member. Can someone refresh my failing memory of the name of the parliamentarian. I know her hubby is a lawyer if memory serves.
Well, this where some additional ambiguity comes in. You are correct that motions are required to be posted 7 days before a meeting, however, the Bylaws also state: "At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted in RCSC Facilities and/or on the RCSC website ." What that is telling me is this, a motion can be made to amend the agenda. It can be amended by a majority vote at the time the chair is asking for approval of the agenda, or it can be amended by a 2/3rds vote at any time during the meeting. Of course, neither was done. The agenda wasn't amended nor was there a 7 day previous notice! A "Point of Order" was only in order the day of the meeting where the motion was voted on and it had to be done by a member of the board. I think that IF the parliamentarian was truly up to speed with our Bylaws she should have known that the amendment that inserted the PIF increase was out of order? Unfortunately, I have to side with the parliamentarian that once the issue was voted on, it's water over the dam! However, they still need to clarify the intents of that Bylaw?
Rae Lynne Chornenky She has a long list that includes parliamentary associations: Professional Associations and Memberships National Association of Parliamentarians, Member American Institute of Parliamentarians, Member https://chornenkylaw.com/index.php There are several units of the National Association in Arizona: Arizona Arizona Agua Fria Unit (Sun City/West Valley) Arizona Alpha Unit (Tempe/Mesa/East Valley) Arizona Omicron (Pima) Arizona Professional Registered Parliamentarian Unit (Phoenix) Bradshaw Mountain Unit (Prescott/Cottonwood) Old Pueblo Unit (Tucson) Valle del Sol Unit (Phoenix) Is it the responsibility of the parliamentarian to decide if members speaking from the floor have a podium or not?? I doubt it! Just another point of irritation, take the podium away…”in the best interest of the members.”
I know she was right, it should have been made at the point the motion was made. My point was simply this: The board was wrong the way they inserted a motion into the meeting without amending the agenda. The bigger point was the president couldn't/wouldn't admit it was done wrong. As you noted FYI. it was handled poorly and the board was in error. And, the parliamentarian should have told them so. It's not my job to tell them how to conduct a meeting. They should have a freaking clue what they are doing. Sadly, they don't. They are just so used to doing whatever they want/feel like doing, and now when confronted they are showing us exactly how uncomfortable they are when being held accountable.
The main point I was trying to make but poorly articulated was the fact that the bylaws are talking out of both sides of their mouth! First...the bylaws state that there needs to be 7 days prior notice of the agenda but it also says that you can amend the agenda at the meeting!?!?!? The question that I kinda have is this; is it only the agenda that needs to be posted 7 days in advance or is it the actual motions listed on the agenda that are required to be posted 7 days in advance? The bylaw is clearly only referring to the agenda and not any particular items listed on that agenda or else it would say, "agenda and motions must be posted 7 days in advance of the meeting"! Obviously, if you can amend the agenda at an actual board meeting to introduce a new motion you can't very well provide the 7 day previous notice! And remember, first of all, an agenda has no significant authority until it is approved by the membership at the meeting. An agenda is primarily only a type of schedule stating the order in which certain items will be addressed. Based on Robert's Rules amendments to the bylaws or articles of incorporation definitely require previous notice but it seems unclear as too how much advanced notice is required and how that previous notice is given! In reality, only the board members need to receive previous notice because they are the only ones voting on the motions!?!?! And we all know they hold their secret coffee klatches at George's so they all know exactly what's coming down the pike! But then again you have the bylaw requirement that Members are allowed time to comment, but we can't very well comment on anything unless we know what it is about! Unfortunately, the deeper we delve into the bylaws the worse they appear to be! Things desperately need to change! I hope the new upcoming members of the board feel the same way and are willing to take on the task?
You are right FYI, the by-laws are a convoluted mess. I would argue it was intentional, but that may be giving the person who wrote them too much credit. If this election is to be judged a success, one of their first acts should be to form a by-laws committee and rewrite them to make sense and to flow in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation. As the board has been pushed to hold the membership meeting, it has become crystal clear no one has a clue as to what they say. There's been lots of interpretations, and all to often hearing the explanation, members walk away more confused than before they started or asked what they meant. Sorry, that just shouldn't be the case. To be fair, the board inherited the mess and now they are trying to do damage control. One quick example. We were told if we wanted to propose by-law changes we had to get them in hand to the RCSC at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Today we were told there would be no voting at the membership meeting even though the community documents state clearly we can vote at the meeting. If we can't vote and if the board is going to consider any motions/proposals we make after and away from the crowd, what difference does it make when they were submitted? None of it makes any sense. My final thought is this: Why is the RCSC (board and management) afraid of the membership? How have we gotten to this point where the common good/common goal is so far removed from the equation? I have stated for years now, i believe it was by design and with the intended outcome of members just not caring or being involved. It probably would have worked had they not fired Karen and got members ire up. Now, it's not going away and i fear after next Monday's meeting it will only be worse.
Is this is the RCSC Board's parliamentarian! Maricopa County Republican Chair Is Latest Casualty In 2020 Election By Terri Jo Neff on November 11, 2020 A political catfight erupted Monday night within the Maricopa County Republican Party, and when the dust settled the organization was left without a chairperson. Chairwoman Rae Lynne Chornenky resigned her position Tuesday after coming under fire from Rep. Kelly Townsend (LD16) for failing to attend the county’s Oct. 6 logic & accuracy test session of election equipment in advance of the Nov. 3 General Election. Known as LA testing, the process involves verifying the county’s election equipment reads and accepts only the correct ballots and then accurately reports the number of votes cast for each candidate or race. Chornenky is a former assistant attorney general and criminal prosecutor who also spent several years as a superior court judge. Townsend issued a public demand for her resignation on Monday after learning of the missed test session, which was attended by the Maricopa County Democratic Party. In one tweet, Townsend noted “Head’s the word, Roll’s the action,” while in another she stated Chornenky’s inaction “has contributed to the collapse of Arizona voter confidence.” In response, Chornenky tweeted she would resign when Townsend sprouted “even an ounce of integrity and obtain the intelligence to check your facts before spreading filth about a person whom you don’t know on a topic about which you have not the slightest clue.” However, she did tender her resignation as party chair on Tuesday. It’s unclear whether Chornenky received notice of the planned Oct. 6 LA testing, but Maricopa County, like all counties, gives advance notice of their testing plans so interested members of the public can attend. According to the Arizona Clean Elections Commission, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs is responsible for certifying the election equipment used by the state’s 15 counties. Hobbs also works directly with each county election director to ensure the LA testing is conducted and that a 100 percent accuracy result is obtained. Otherwise the equipment cannot be put into use. Townsend provided no proof that anything shady occurred during last month’s LA testing, but the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has received more than 1,000 complaints about difficulties on Election Day with tabulation machines throughout Maricopa County. And a county judge will hold an evidentiary trial Thursday on allegations by President Trump’s campaign and two Republican groups that “potentially thousands” of voters had ballots rejected by tabulation machines. Another of Chornenky’s duties as party chair was to select observers who are allowed into the county’s election department to watch as ballots are tabulated. Townsend and others in the party have alleged that Republicans observers have not been monitoring the vote count, but have provided no evidence of those claims. Townsend, who was elected last week to the State Senate, has also called on Gov. Doug Ducey to bring legislators back to the Capitol for a special session so that an audit of all election ballots can be conducted and “counts adjusted” as needed.
I believe that is our Parliamentarian. I was unable to find her at any of the sites mentioned in post #4. She is a Lawyer from what I can find.
Image in this news coverage confirms she IS the same person chosen as our parliamentarian…”birds of a feather?” Republican chairman Rae Chornenky steps down Posted at 12:50 PM, Nov 11, 2020 and last updated 6:28 PM, Nov 11, 2020 https://www.abc15.com/news/election-2020/maricopa-county-republican-chairman-rae-chornenky-steps-down
OMG, why don't we just hire a professional. We hired cops/security - we can afford a "REAL" parliamentarian.
I will say it again, i don't really care who the parliamentarian is, as long as they know their stuff. It's too early to tell if she does or doesn't. The discussion sent me scurrying to what a parliamentarian should do. Lots of variations, but it is clear he/she works for the board and more so the president. In layman's terms, their job is to keep them within the guard rails, the community documents on how to function. Therein is the problem, anyone trying to interpret the by-laws is starting from a lose/lose perspective. To say they are poorly written is being very kind. In my readings this morning, one of the functions of a qualified parliamentarian is to assist in creating documents that are understandable and actually fit with what the organization is trying to do. All of which has inspired me to start a new topic where we look at how we got here and where we are. For now though, if you watch yesterday's meeting, you will see the exchange between the president and i (with the parliamentarian telling her what to say), which is fine by the way. I called for a point of order and i know enough to know it wasn't anything they could or would do about it. The whole thing was more for information purposes; though it is clear from the presidents response, she is beyond understanding even the most basic of mistakes. Flashing back, i'm not even sure i was in the room when the "illegal" motion was made by a director. If you follow these threads you know i said i didn't recall a motion to raise the PIF. Aggie pointed out where it was and my response was there couldn't have been because it wasn't on the agenda. Here's the teachable moment; for all of us: When the motion was made, one of the other board members should have called for a point of order. At which point the president should have consulted with the parliamentarian regarding the question. If what i read is correct, it wasn't the parliamentarian to tell her the motion was out of order, unless the question was raised (though in some cases parliamentarian's have more flexibility). The other option, i guess was for one of us sitting in the audience to shout out point of order. That may or may not have made a difference because the board is fairly rigid about all of us in the room staying in our lanes and not straying. Seems we have been told repeatedly this is their meeting, not ours. They are gracious enough to let us have our three minutes. Anyway, it has become crystal clear to me, next Monday's meeting will be a cluster-flock of the highest order...whether we meet the quorum or not. The shit-show we know as our by-laws are so poorly written, no one knows what they say. I suspect what we will hear all too often next week is, ya but the intent was this, not what they actually say.
So do you remember when we were fed the idea that having this first of the month Board Meeting would be like our Board/Member Exchange Meetings? We sure were wrong in believing that would happen. We have no Member Communications now. It's like talking in a big, big dark tunnel and you only hear an echo of yourself.
It's the new normal aggie. It has to change. It all happened over the past 15 years and i would argue with anyone, it was by design.
